CATHOLICS, NOT BORN AGAINS, WON IT FOR BUSH: Steven Waldman and John Green

The congealing conventional wisdom is that super-religious, born-again Protestants--a.k.a. the religious right--carried President Bush to victory in 2004. A new Beliefnet analysis of the election data reveals this is only half right.
There was indeed a flood of evangelicals to the polls--but it now appears that the shift in the Catholic vote was just as important and, in crucial states, probably more so.

In addition, Bush also made gains among the moderately religious--and the secular--not just the heavy-duty religious voters who attend religious services weekly or more.

Bush's strong performance among Catholics, it turns out, was crucial to his victory. Bush won Catholics 52%-47% this time, while Al Gore carried them 50%-46% in 2000. If Kerry had done as well as Gore, he would have had about a million more votes nationwide. According to Gallup Polls, only one Democrat since 1952 (Walter Mondale in 1984) lost the Catholic vote by this large a margin.

The Catholic impact was starker in key states. ...

Bush also did better among Hispanic Catholics, getting 42% of the vote in 2004 compared to 31% in 2000. ...

Another surprising finding: Bush did not dramatically improve his standing among people who go to church weekly or more often. ...

Amusingly, the biggest improvement in Bush's performance actually came from those who never go to church. He won 36% of this group compared to 32% last time.

While it is certainly not the case that Bush rode to office on a wave of atheism and secularism, these patterns reveal the complexity of Bush coalition--it was not just the "religious right."

None of this is to suggest that white church-going evangelicals didn't play a significant role. They were probably particularly important in growing Bush's overall popular vote and in some close swing states. A good example is Iowa where where close to a third of the voters this time were white born again Protestants. ...

Second, evangelical turnout was at least partly offset by increased turnout from pro-Kerry groups. Kerry got roughly two million more votes from 18-29-year-olds than Gore did in 2000. He received approximately 1.6 million more votes from African Americans than Gore did. Churchgoers voted in greater numbers--but so did secular voters, and, in fact, nearly everbody else.

more

posted by Eve at 6:42 PM | link 0 comments

THE "MORAL VALUES" ISSUE: Peter Steinfels

...So level-headed observers like Mr. Kohut are wise to warn that no one quite knows what reality lies behind the moral values catchphrase. But isn't it important to find out? The fact that 80 percent of the voters listing moral values uppermost in their minds voted for Mr. Bush suggests that there is some unifying, underlying reality there. Anyone seeking to understand American political culture should be more than a little bit curious, to say nothing of Democrats contemplating the future of their party.

There are, however, several surefire ways to short-circuit such an inquiry. ...

Voters' emphasis on moral values has prompted talk that the culture is undergoing a sharp conservative shift. A better case can be made that the cultural shifts of recent years have almost entirely continued in a liberal direction. On Nov. 2 a significant part of the nation balked. Gay marriage has proved, at least for now, unacceptable. Meanwhile civil unions, which stirred shock and fury in Vermont only a few years ago, have almost reached the edge of being mainstream.

A final way of skirting any exploration of the moral values so many Americans say determined their presidential choice actually has considerable legitimacy. One can challenge the very idea reflected in the exit polls that moral values constitute some distinct category of public concerns.

Are not moral values also at stake in decisions about war, in drawing lines against torture, in addressing poverty or in providing desperately needed housing and health care? It has become commonplace to note that for every injunction in the Bible regarding homosexuality there are hundreds, maybe thousands regarding care for the poor. All of a nation's common life, not just sexual matters or personal behavior, is shot through with moral and ethical issues.

These points are absolutely true. But those who make them should remember that enlarging the framework of the discussion is one thing, trying to change the subject is another. Whatever this large chunk of voters may have in mind by moral values, those things need to be identified and addressed, not simply steamrolled over by pointing to other issues that may be equally moral and equally or even more important.

more

posted by Eve at 6:37 PM | link 0 comments

THE VALUES-VOTE MYTH: David Brooks

...Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything--or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result. ...

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

more

posted by Eve at 6:32 PM | link 0 comments

MANY BUSH SUPPORTERS ALMOST VOTED FOR KERRY: From the Detroit Free Press

Nearly one-fourth of President George W. Bush's supporters in Tuesday's election considered voting for Sen. John Kerry, but they stuck with the president because of concerns about terrorism and moral values, postelection polls show. ...

Greenberg, a top pollster in former President Bill Clinton's first White House campaign and a Kerry adviser this year, said his research indicated that concern about moral values was a pivotal factor for rural voters, older blue-collar workers and elderly Americans who might otherwise have voted for Kerry.

Greenberg also tested voter reaction to a series of events. About 22 percent said bin Laden's appearance on videotape four days before the election made them more likely to vote for Bush, compared with 13 percent who were more inclined to go with Kerry. ...

Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter in discussing homosexuality was even more polarizing. About a third of the voters said it made them more likely to vote for Bush, while only 12 percent considered it a plus for Kerry.

more

posted by Eve at 6:11 PM | link 0 comments

TEXAS TEXTBOOKS REVISED: From the Dallas Morning News

The State Board of Education adopted new health textbooks Friday that promote traditional marriage and sexual abstinence while providing scant information about condoms, contraception and other sensitive sex-related topics.

Critics railed against the new high school texts, saying they'll be of little use to sexually active teenagers who need advice on avoiding unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Texas leads the nation in teenage births.

But most board members said they preferred the overriding emphasis on abstinence. They don't believe it necessary for textbooks to present comprehensive information on condoms and other forms of contraception. Publishers also gave in to last-minute pressure from some board members to clearly define marriage as a "lifelong union" between a man and woman, and eliminate words that could suggest same-sex civil unions, such as "partners" and "couples."

The more striking changes suggested by social conservatives--including language that said homosexuals are more likely to use illegal drugs and commit suicide--were rejected by the publishers. ...

Textbook selection in Texas is closely watched because the state is the second-largest purchaser of school books in the nation and the largest state that approves specific books for all grade levels. Books adopted in Texas generally are marketed to public and private schools in dozens of other states.

Republican board member Terri Leo suggested several wording changes on Thursday after complaining that publishers were violating state laws banning same-sex marriages and civil unions. She said Friday that she was satisfied with the few revisions that were made by publishers overnight.

Holt, Rinehart and Winston added to its middle school health books this sentence: "Marriage is a lifelong union between a husband and wife."

The sentence was placed in three different sections in the books.

That addition came after Leo said the books' use of words like "partners" and "couples" implied approval of gay marriages and civil unions." ...

Publisher Glencoe/McGraw-Hill changed some wording throughout its high school books from phrases like "when two people marry" to "when a man and a woman marry."

more

posted by Eve at 6:03 PM | link 0 comments

MONOGAMOUS EVER AFTER?: Joe Kort

[If you're wondering why I'm posting this older piece, I found it via the comments here and thought it was interesting. --Eve]

I've wanted to write an article on this topic ever since I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, "No."

I was confused. Maybe I hadn't gotten the correct information in our initial consultation? I told them, "I thought you told me you were monogamous," and they said, "We are." Now I was REALLY confused! So I said, "But you just told me you were monogamous."

Their reply was, "We are monogamous. We only have three-ways together, and are never sexual with others apart from each other." Okay, now I was slowly getting it.

I quickly learned to ask what a couple means when they say they're monogamous. Now, in fact, I routinely ask each couple, gay or straight alike, what their contract is around sex and commitment. Do they have an assumed or an explicit contract, verbal or otherwise? I don't assume that every couple or individual who comes in for therapy is in an open or closed relationship. Nor do I assume that they have--or have not--talked about it. ...

When it comes to open relationships, judgments are changing. Historically, it was believed, and still is, that if a couple was open to bringing in others for sex, that was the beginning of the end for their relationship. Also the thought of a couple in an open relationship coming to therapy has been--and still is--seen as one of the problems for them, even if they themselves denied it. But too many happy and successful relationships, both gay and straight, have open contracts around sex.

Meanwhile, some monogamous couples struggle and disintegrate for not being willing to open up their relationships at all. ...

Open relationships are controversial, to be sure. Claiming that gay male couples can show how to manage them successfully is even more controversial, at a time when the issue of gay marriage is making headlines. However, many heterosexual couples' lives are torn apart because of affairs and cheating; and only rarely do these couples talk openly about their sex lives. This is far worse than a couple talking openly and honestly with each other about a sensitive topic like sexuality.

At a recent talk I gave on gay marriage, a group of Caucasian CEOs challenged me on the concept. One man in particular asked, "If we open the doors to gay marriage, then what's next--polygamy?" Interestingly, another man in the group looked at him and asked, "How could you be against polygamy? You've divorced three wives and are looking for a fourth!" ...

Here are 10 smart things Gay Couples can teach other couples about sexual monogamy versus non-monogamy...

more

posted by Eve at 11:35 PM | link 0 comments

CLINTON, KERRY, AND SSM: Chris Crain

Give Bill Clinton credit for his uncanny political senses. Before other angry Democrats were relying on exit polls to blame gay marriage for John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Bill Clinton was sounding the alarm. In a rally back home in Little Rock on the Sunday before election day, Clinton said, "Out in the country, they are wearing us out with guns and gay marriage."

Apparently that wasn't the first time the former president had expressed that sentiment. Newsweek magazine, which is coming out with a series of behind-the-scenes reports from staffers "embedded" in John Kerry's campaign, will tell how Clinton urged the Democratic nominee in a phone call to back the various state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage.

"I'm not going to ever do that," the magazine will report that Kerry told his advisers after the Clinton call. ...

The excerpt raises a number of questions. While it's gratifying to hear that Kerry wouldn't agree to gay-bait his way to the White House like his Republican opponent, the Massachusetts senator did in fact support such state amendments under certain circumstances. He vocally backed efforts to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to overturn the landmark Supreme Judicial Court ruling there. And he supported a similar measure passed by Missouri voters earlier this year.

In a longer interview published in the Blade, Kerry later clarified that he would support such statewide bans only if they allowed for civil unions as an alternative.

Even by Election Day, his campaign had failed to clarify whether that meant Kerry would only support statewide bans like the one in Massachusetts that specifically provided for civil unions; or whether he would also support bans like those passed this week in three states--Oregon, Mississippi and Montana--that did not address the availability of civil unions as an alternative institution. (Interestingly, that was ultimately President Bush's position on the statewide bans, though he revealed that break with his own party's platform almost on the sly in an interview on "Good Morning America" only two weeks before the election.)

more

posted by Eve at 11:33 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND THE ELECTION: INTERVIEW WITH SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM

...When I reached Newsom by phone on Thursday, he tried to joke off the criticism. "Hey, I'm responsible for the end of the free world," he said. "It's amazing -- for those who believe one person can't make a difference, look at me." But he sounded battered and tired, and admitted it. "When you defend yourself 400 times, you get defensive. You should see the stack of phone messages I have here. It hurts to be criticized by my party. But this issue began long before I even took office."

Newsom said it was the November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court -- declaring that its state Constitution sanctioned gay marriage and not merely civil unions -- that put the issue on the map. Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave then jumpstarted the backlash with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "So there were already plenty of promises by Bush and his administration that this would be a major issue in their campaign," he said.

I know a lot of liberals are feeling lonely this week. But I'm having an especially hard time because I have a lot of innate sympathy for cultural conservatives. I'm a working-class Irish Catholic -- as is Newsom, incidentally -- who moved away from the church because of its stands on women's issues. Yet all my lefty values come from Catholicism and I still miss it. ...And until Newsom went on his marrying spree, I thought Democrats needed to move very slowly on gay marriage.

Then I had friends and neighbors who got married -- and a few whose weddings got canceled when the California Supreme Court stopped the ceremonies in March -- and my worldview permanently shifted. Now I don't know how the party can turn its back on gay people who want to marry. ...

Even Newsom admits to some post-election soul-searching. To say he cost Kerry the election "is quite simplistic," he said. "But I'll live with the burden of never knowing," he conceded. He argued, maybe self-servingly, that one could make the case that he helped Kerry by deflecting attention from the Massachusetts liberal, whose state legalized gay marriage. "When we were in Boston this summer, you didn't see photos of gay couples getting married there," Newsom said. "All those images were exploited months earlier in San Francisco. We took the focus away from Massachusetts. And now, even the president all but supports civil unions. Dick Cheney supports civil unions. We moved the debate."

more

posted by Eve at 11:27 PM | link 0 comments

IS BUSH'S WIN ALL OUR FAULT?: Steve Weinstein

...I accuse the gay leadership in this country of putting their own selfish interests above the greater good of the electorate.

There is no reason why we should have been pursuing the issue of gay marriage on the eve of an election year. The key to being a good general is not knowing how to choose the victories, but in judiciously choosing your defeats.

Would it have made such a difference to those couples in Massachusetts if they had waited a year or two before tying the knot? Would it have hurt San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom or New Paltz Mayor Jason West to have put off marrying gay couples until Nov. 3, 2004? ...

It was only 35 years ago that a ragtag group of drag queens, lesbians and gay boys provoked the police at a mafia-run hole-in-the-wall bar called Stonewall on Christopher Street.

These are long-term battles in a very long war that we are only beginning. So what did we do? Something that no one would have thought possible a few short years ago.

We alienated large numbers of black churchgoers. We brought out believers in evangelical sects who had previously shunned the ballot box. We even got the Amish--Amish--to get into their buggies and drive to polling places.

This was no mean feat. Unfortunately, it meant losing every single vote on gay marriage and handing the election to President Bush.

more

posted by Eve at 11:22 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTING OUR WAY TO CIVIL RIGHTS, OR NOT: Chris Crain

...Over the next weeks and months, we can expect and should welcome a debate within the Democratic Party, and among gay rights groups, about the best strategy to adopt in response to Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman's cynical ploy to divide and conquer.

Some will suggest, as they have on these pages this week, that the mistake was for gays to seek too much too soon, inflaming conservatives and costing Kerry his White House bid.

If Barney Frank and others of like mind actually think that gay couples marrying in San Francisco and New York caused this conservative backlash, then they are forgetting their history.

The gay marriage ballots that passed this week succeeded by roughly the same margin as they did in Hawaii, Alaska and California in the late 1990s. No sign of backlash there.

If conservatives were inflamed, it was the inevitable result of the Massachusetts court opinion. In fact, there's evidence that seeing these real-life couples marry on both coasts actually helped more Americans see that we seek no more from the institution of marriage than they do.

The same doom and gloom exit polls also show that a significant majority of voters--61 percent!--actually support either legal marriage or civil unions for gays.

THEREIN LIES THE future, and it is not in some disingenuous move to the middle, burying gay rights so that we hope no one notices. Or worse yet, repeating the embarrassing effort by congressional Democrats and our own gay rights groups to try desperately to change the subject whenever gay marriage comes up.

The future of our movement--and of the Democratic Party if it has the courage of its convictions--is to actually engage cultural conservatives on these issues and to make our case.

The only difference between civil unions and marriage is the word itself, or so we've been told, so let's focus our efforts on winning over the 35 percent of Americans who support civil unions so that they might join the 26 percent who back full marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 11:19 PM | link 0 comments

THE GAY MARRIAGE MYTH: TERRORISM, NOT VALUES, DROVE BUSH'S REELECTION: Paul Freedman

...The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.

It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.

Why did states with gay-marriage ballot measures vote so heavily for Bush? Because such measures don't appear on state ballots randomly. Opponents of gay marriage concentrate their efforts in states that are most hospitable to a ban and are most likely to vote for Bush even without such a ballot measure. A state's history of voting for Bush is more likely to lead to an anti-gay-marriage measure on that state's ballot than the other way around.

Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. It's true that by four percentage points, people in states where gay marriage was on the ballot were more likely than people elsewhere to mention moral issues as a top priority (25.0 vs. 20.9 percent). But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

more

posted by Eve at 11:15 PM | link 0 comments

INTERESTING ANECDOTES FROM MICHIGAN: From the Grand Rapids Press

[Haven't seen this factor mentioned elsewhere. Doubtless a lot of amendments and initiatives are confusing to native English speakers, let alone people for whom it's a second language; still, I thought this was worth noting. --Eve]

There was some confusion among Hispanic voters about the language of Proposal 2.

Grand Rapids resident Franky Pagan said he opposes gay marriage but voted "no" on Proposal 2. "I strongly believe in the Bible, and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," said Pagan after voting at Hall Elementary. "I guess I didn't have the correct information," he said.

Maria Santiago, 44, of Grand Rapids, made the same mistake.

"I voted no because I believe in God, and God said a man and a woman should be together, not a man and a man."

more

posted by Eve at 7:06 PM | link 0 comments

A SPECTER IS HAUNTING...: From the Associated Press

[Potentially relevant to court-watchers on more than one issue. Specter replied to criticism for his remarks here. For all your Spectral needs, try The Corner--lots of phone numbers and whatnot are there, so even those who radically disagree with National Review's position may find it a useful resource for figuring out what's being discussed and perhaps whom to call. If people have a similarly comprehensive pro-Specter roundup link I'll post that too. --Eve]

The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

With at least three Supreme Court justices rumored to be eyeing retirement, including ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court. He would have wide latitude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants.

more

posted by Eve at 7:01 PM | link 0 comments

THE ANTI-MARRIAGE-EQUALITY BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Barry Deutsch

In the post before this one, I argued that one of the most common arguments against marriage equality is a bait and switch. Rather than arguing against marriage equality itself, opponents argue that ideally children should be raised by a mom and a dad. Then they tell people that in order to insure that children are raised by moms and dads, we must oppose marriage equality.

Marriage equality opponents must know that this is nonsense. All over the country, and (outside of Massachusetts) without legal marriage, same-sex couples are raising children. They are not waiting for legal marriage, nor will banning legal marriage give the government a new right to take children away from same-sex couples. The policy marriage-equality opponents propose--banning same-sex marriage--does not in any way solve the problem they claim to be responding to, which is children growing up in homes without two biological parents. ...

The way some of them make the link is to argue that whenever the law treats two things with legal equality that sends a message. According to this worldview, by allowing marriage equality, Massachusetts has "sent a message" which says that no child needs a mom or a dad.

There are two problems with this point of view.

First of all, it's simply, factually wrong: equal legal treatment sends no such message. If it did, then by allowing criminals in prison to marry, the US has sent the message that convicted murderers are just swell as parents and mates, and that kids don't need two parents out of prison. By allowing the KKK a legal right to march, the government says the KKK is just as good as Veterans marching on Veterans Day. And so forth. ...

The paradox is, although no particular message is sent by equal treatment, a definite message is sent by prejudicial treatment. As long as marriage inequality continues, the US is sending a message that lesbians, gays and their children are second-class citizens (a message that's particularly harmful to lesbian and gay teens). This may seem like a contradiction in my position, but it's not. The discrimination marriage equality opponents favor is active discrimination; in contrast, equal treatment is a government's way of being neutral, sending no message at all. ...

The anti-marriage equality case rests on the implicit belief that any harm to same-sex families, however huge, is justified if it prevents any difficulty to heterosexuals, however tiny or theoretical. That view is simply not compatible with a worldview that sees lesbians, gays and their children as human beings equal in value to all other humans.

more

posted by Eve at 6:59 PM | link 0 comments

HOW THE DEBATE WAS FRAMED: Replies to Eve

Was the push for state marriage amendments "really" about marriage, or about anti-gay bigotry, or what?

Michael Triplett uses the Family Research Council website as an example.

Barry Deutsch uses examples from the Oregon campaign.

posted by Eve at 6:56 PM | link 0 comments

CAN THIS INSTITUTION BE SAVED?: Tim Stafford

Christianity Today report/musing on the annual Smart Marriages conference. Lots of food for thought, including replies to the questions of whether education can actually help marriage and whether marriage counseling that focuses on helping people feel happy and fulfilled in their marriages is missing the point. Here.

posted by Eve at 6:52 PM | link 0 comments

OHIO, SSM, "VALUES VOTERS": A reader of Andrew Sullivan's site

So lots of pundits, including you, have been attributing Bush's success nationally to his having excited the base over the gay marriage issue. In particular, the strategy of using the ballot initiatives in 11 states, thereby dragging religious conservatives to the polls to vote against marriage and at the same time check the box next to Bush, is regarded as having been particularly effective.

That is, of course, fiction. Bush improved his share of the popular vote by 3.2% from 2000 to 2004 (47.9 in 2000, 51.1 in 2004). Now how did he do in the states which had anti-marriage ballot initiatives? ...

Only in two states (Utah and Oklahoma) did he gain a significantly higher vote share than he did nationwide. Maybe comparing to the national popular vote is misleading, so let's compare each of those states to a neighboring, politically-similar state which did not have an anti-marriage initiative on the ballot: ...Again, not much. In only 3 cases (UT-WY, ND-SD, and OK-TX) did Bush improve a lot more in a state with an anti-marriage initiative than he did in the state with which it was paired. ...

It is certainly possible that the fact that the Bush administration raised the issue to the level to which did led to increased turnout among religious conservatives nationwide, which then resulted in Bush's overall improved vote share over his 2000 performance. However, one would also expect that this vote share improvement would have been particularly high in states in which the marriage issue was particularly relevant. On the contrary, there is no evidence that suggests that the strategy of putting the anti-marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states did anything to improve Bush's performance in those states.

more

posted by Eve at 6:48 PM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS"?: Walter Shapiro

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court helped put George W. Bush in the White House. On Tuesday, Bush again won a presidential election with the aid of a state supreme court. This time, it was the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage in that state that may have been the decisive factor in granting Bush a second term.

At the same time, Ohio handed Bush the narrow victory that gave him an Electoral College majority, voters in the Buckeye State also overwhelmingly approved a ban on gay marriage. The Massachusetts decision in November 2003 provided the political momentum behind the crusade in Ohio to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Bush campaign directly benefited from the outpouring of social conservatives who supported the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the state constitution known as Issue 1.

"I always try to avoid single-factor analysis," said Ohio Democratic strategist Greg Haas. "But if Issue 1 had not been on the ballot, John Kerry would have won Ohio." ...

Parsley, who presides over a biracial congregation, also noted that 16% of African-American voters in Ohio supported Bush, compared with 11% nationally. Because other polls show that black voters strongly oppose gay marriage, Parsley probably theorized correctly that Issue 1 helped the president gain support among this disproportionately Democratic group. ...

Already there is a new orthodoxy built around the exit-poll finding that more voters (22%) cited "moral values" as the reason for their presidential choice than any other factor. ...

Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, echoed my distress with the exit-poll questionnaires. "They're pretty blunt instruments," she said, "And they take on an undue importance because they're the only numbers out there and they have the patina of science." Bowman pointed out that exit polls conducted by the Los Angeles Times also found that voters picked "moral values" as their top issue choice in 1996 and 2000.

Yes, gay marriage was probably the issue that spelled the difference in hard-fought Ohio. But it is a dangerous leap to go from that one-state theory to the broader conclusion that the 2004 election was a referendum on which candidate better personified "moral values."

more

posted by Eve at 5:24 PM | link 0 comments

TEXAS TEXTBOOK FIGHT ON MARRIAGE: From the Associated Press

A Texas State Board of Education member called on textbook publishers to change the wording in health books being considered for use in Texas schools to clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Terri Leo said certain books attempt to nullify a Texas law banning the recognition of same-sex civil unions by using "asexual stealth phrases" such as "individuals who marry" instead of husbands and wives.

"I want the reader, the child to know that marriage is between a man and a woman," Leo, R-Spring, said in a written statement released during a board meeting Wednesday.

The 15-member board is scheduled to vote Friday on whether to approve the books for middle- and high schools. The decision could affect dozens of states because books sold in Texas, the nation's second-largest textbook buyer, often are marketed elsewhere.

Board member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, said one of the textbooks showed a picture of a mother and a father and a young girl and her brother. "We cannot start censoring books because we do not like the terminology," Berlanga said. "I don't see two males or two females holding hands."

The board can vote only to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the state.

more

posted by Eve at 5:20 PM | link 0 comments

S.C. NEXT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE?: From the Rock Hill Herald Leader

When the next wave of referendums seeking to ban gay marriage sweeps across the nation, expect South Carolina to be among the states trying to do so.

In Tuesday's national elections, voters in 11 states amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. State Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, has already requested that House staffers begin researching those amendments to help with drafting one for South Carolina. He plans on pushing to have the issue appear on the ballot for the 2006 gubernatorial election. "I see absolutely nothing but positive from having that question on the ballot," Simrill said. "I would think in South Carolina, the numbers would be a good majority if not a super-majority."

Gay rights advocates in South Carolina are disappointed by the possibility but said they are not surprised.

State laws already exist that bar gay marriages or recognizing unions performed elsewhere. Laws also define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. More laws were passed last year that deny benefits to same-sex partners and block gay couples from jointly adopting children.

more

posted by Eve at 4:30 PM | link 0 comments

SSM ILL-SUITED FOR KIDS, GROUP SAYS: From the San Francisco Chronicle

An organization defending California's ban on same-sex marriage sought to widen the scope of a court test of the marriage law Thursday by arguing that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that children do best when raised by a husband and wife.

In papers filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the Alliance Defense Fund also contended that if gay and lesbian couples could legally marry, the same rationale could be used to justify incestuous marriages and polygamy.

The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman "has transcended religion, culture and time, and is the hallmark of every major civilization,'' wrote attorney Robert Tyler. "No same-sex couple will ever procreate. ... If procreation has nothing to do with marriage, then why should the state refuse to recognize a 'marriage' between two brothers or two sisters?''

The Arizona-based organization represents the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, named for the 2000 ballot measure that reaffirmed the definition of marriage approved by the California Legislature in 1977. The brief was filed two days after voters in 11 other states approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

California's ban, however, is only a statute, not part of its Constitution, which overrides conflicting laws. Suits by the city of San Francisco and 12 same-sex couples argue that the marriage law violates state constitutional rights to be free from discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, and the right to privacy.

more

posted by Eve at 4:26 PM | link 0 comments

SSM BAN LOSES GROUND IN MASS. LEGISLATURE: From the Boston Globe

Opponents of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts picked up at least two seats in the Legislature in this week's election, diminishing the measure's chances in the Bay State, even as voters in 11 other states overwhelmingly approved similar proposals.

A total of 105 lawmakers voted for the amendment earlier this year, four more than the 101 necessary for passage. The measure must be approved again in the coming session before it can go on the November 2006 statewide ballot. The amendment would ban same-sex marriage, but allow gay couples to enter civil unions.

Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who presides over the Legislature's joint constitutional sessions, said through a spokeswoman yesterday that he will convene a Constitutional Convention with the same-sex marriage measure on the agenda in 2005. The spokeswoman did not specify when it might be scheduled.

A Globe analysis of Tuesday's elections found that two or perhaps three newly elected opponents of the proposed same-sex marriage ban are replacing lawmakers who voted in favor of the amendment in the spring. Two more opponents would lower the margin of support from 105 lawmakers to 103 if everyone else voted as they did earlier this year.

However, activists and lawmakers caution that the vote totals are fluid, for several reasons. For example, a dozen legislators who voted against the amendment because they oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions could back the measure this time, because they might view it as better than allowing same-sex marriage to remain legal.

On the other hand, a handful of lawmakers who initially voted for the amendment have told reporters that they are likely to back off next time because thousands of gay couples have married here without significant disruption.

Marty Rouse -- campaign director for MassEquality, a group pushing to defeat the amendment -- said his organization is buoyed by Tuesday's results in the state legislative elections but would still like to persuade several more lawmakers to change their votes.

''Several people voted against the amendment for the wrong reasons; they didn't even want civil unions in the constitution," Rouse said. ''That was 12 people. So we really have our work cut out for us."

Of the 17 seats changing hands in the Legislature after Tuesday's elections, at least seven and perhaps eight will now have lawmakers who plan to vote differently on the amendment than their predecessors, a Globe analysis of the election results found.

Five seats changed from favoring the amendment to opposing it. At least two seats changed from opposing to favoring the amendment; another seat is also expected to follow suit, based on an interview with the victorious candidate in that race. ...

Finally, it's not at all clear that the most diehard opponents of same-sex marriage will be willing to throw their support behind the amendment, if it comes up.

Brian Camenker, head of the Article 8 Alliance, a group that opposes same-sex marriage, said his organization will expend no energy to ensure passage of the constitutional amendment proposal, because it was ''calculated to not pass."

''I don't want it to pass," said Camenker, whose organization spent about $40,000 in a dozen legislative races. ''I may form a ballot committee against it. Why would we want civil unions in our constitution?"

more

posted by Eve at 4:22 PM | link 0 comments

SSM IN SASKATCHEWAN: From the Globe and Mail

Saskatchewan has become the seventh Canadian jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriages.

Madam Justice Donna Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled Friday that the traditional definition of marriage, as it currently exists, discriminates against gay and lesbian couples.

Five couples who were denied marriage licences because they were not of the opposite sex filed a statement of claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the common-law definition of marriage be changed.

The group wanted the definition changed to read "two people to the exclusion of others," rather than "two people of the opposite sex." ...

"Marriage signifies societal recognition and affirmation of a relationship between two people who love each other and are committed to each other," said Lenore Swystun, who was part of the court challenge with her partner, Kelley Moore.

more

posted by Eve at 4:19 PM | link 0 comments

DID THE OHIO MARRIAGE AMENDMENT SEND BUSH BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE?: Various

Two conflicting views here.

posted by Eve at 11:35 PM | link 0 comments

CONSIDERING THE FUTURE OF GAY MARRIAGE: From National Public Radio

(if, unlike me, you have your computer speakers hooked up, you can listen here.)

posted by Eve at 11:33 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTION POSTMORTEM: Virginia Postrel

Exit poll data are here, and you can drill down for specifics by state or regions.
As I mentioned earlier in the post about Lupe Valdez's election, the results aren't as bleak for supporters of gay rights as you'd think from listening to triumphant social conservatives or despairing gays.

Nationally, gay marriage is a loser, but civil unions are a big winner, with 35 percent support (and 32 percent in the South). Assume that the 25 percent who back marriage rights (17 percent in the South), and you've got a clear majority (and a slim lead even in the South, where Bush won 32 percent of gay voters). The public is squeamish about "gay marriage," but not about giving gay couples public recognition and legal rights.

link

posted by Eve at 7:18 PM | link 0 comments

HUMAN FRAILTY AND THE MEANING OF FRIENDSHIP: Joseph Stong replies to Eve

[In case you want a break from election postmortems! Note that this post, like the original post of mine to which it replies, is meant as a musing or food for thought rather than as crisp syllogisms or polemic. --Eve]

I think the problem you and many of our generation may have is the inability to distinguish between eros and philia type friendships... or maybe it's that the sex-saturated culture where the 2nd date involves intercourse has brought us to the place where we can't see that friendship is a vital need of all human beings and that it doesn't have to involve sexual intimacy.

Think about all those soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, or indeed all wars... the men are more than good friends. They are willing to die for their buddies at a moments notice...to jump on the hand grenade. But they wouldn't dream of sex with them! Veterans are deeply, psychologically hard-wired to fidelity with those they've suffered with. But their relationship isn't identical to marriage! It's as if our generation's worst intellectual problem is the failure to draw clear distinctions and allow for different types of friendships or "interpersonal relations." One size does not fit all. It's not either/or: either sex or loneliness.

I can imagine the weight of cultural expectations crashing down on the young girls these days... and on the boys. Both are told that life is about sex and parties and popularity. Both are told that sex is the currency that buys happiness so obviously if a guy feels more comfortable with other guys--shazam! he must be gay and if a girl feels safer with girls, Pow! she's lesbian. When all along what we are dealing with is truly "a case of miscommunication."

posted by Eve at 2:01 PM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS"?: Eugene Volokh

According to the exit polls -- and take them with a grain of salt -- moral values was given as the most important issue by 22% of voters. But 20% and 19% said economy/jobs and terrorism, respectively; and though theoretically these numbers are likely outside the mathematical margin of error for the entire survey (there were 13,000+ respondents nationwide, which means the purely mathematical margin of error would be roughly 1%), given all the nonmathematical imprecision inherent in this sort of survey, I'd say that it's a tie.

What's more, even if the 22% constitutes a plurality, that doesn't tell us much about just how important the issue to a majority of voters. Among other things, look how sensitive the plurality question is to the way the options are given or classified: If you combine terrorism and Iraq under the rubric of "national security," and combine their 19% and 15%, moral values gets displaced as the plurality winner. Likewise if you combine health care (which presumably means making health care more affordable) and economy/jobs, which put together count for 28%, into a single economic well-being category.

Now I'm quite sure that moral values are very important to many voters -- to some, they are the most important issue, and to others they may be a close second. But their garnering a 22% plurality as the most important issue tells us relatively little about how they actually stack up to other matters, such as national security, economic well-being, and so on. It seems to me that people pay more attention to these "most important issue" surveys, where the "winner" has less than a quarter of the vote, than the surveys deserve.

more

posted by Eve at 1:57 PM | link 0 comments

FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGES SSM BAN: From the Associated Press

Four women have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a constitutional amendment passed by voters this week that bans same-sex marriage.

The women filed a civil rights lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Tulsa that seeks to do away with the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The ban also prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to unmarried couples in Oklahoma. Same-sex marriages in Oklahoma are not recognized. ...

In addition to seeking to overturn the state constitutional amendment, the case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to ignore gay weddings performed in other states. ...

The lawsuit claims the women have been denied the rights and privileges of other citizens within the state of Oklahoma and the United States of America.

The state constitutional amendment and DOMA violate the plaintiffs' right to either enter into a marriage contract or have their civil union recognized by the state of Oklahoma, according to the lawsuit.

more

posted by Eve at 1:50 PM | link 0 comments

EUROPEAN UNION RIFT OVER GAY MARRIAGE: From 365Gay.com

Slovakia, a member of the European for less than a year, has plunged the EU into a new crisis. At a meeting of European Union foreign affairs ministers in Brussels Slovakia said it would not recognize some sections of the European human rights laws, especially in the areas of gay rights.

The government then informed the EU that it was taking unilateral action and would not recognize gay marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships conducted in other EU member countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium have legalized gay marriage. Spain has similar legislation pending before Parliament, and all other states have varying forms of recognizing same-sex couples. ...

Slovakia's decision will mean two separate human rights laws within the EU and has some European leaders concerned that if one country can opt out of laws, other countries could to the same with laws with which they disagree ultimately emasculating the Union.

more

posted by Eve at 1:48 PM | link 0 comments

DID GAY MARRIAGE HELP RE-ELECT BUSH?: From the San Francisco Chronicle

...Gay and lesbian leaders faced a sober rethinking of their strategy -- which some said must include reaching out to churches and red-state voters who gave Republicans their sweep of the House, Senate and White House.

Some, however, fiercely denied that their drive for marriage equality contributed to Kerry's narrow loss. The Massachusetts senator opposed a federal constitutional ban.

"There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that gay marriage tipped the scale in any state," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Others -- from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein to leaders of the Christian right to outside analysts -- disagreed.

Meeting with reporters outside her San Francisco home Wednesday afternoon, Feinstein was asked whether Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuance of marriage licenses -- which Bush cited as a factor in his decision to support a federal constitutional ban -- had caused a problem for Democrats.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Feinstein said. "It gave them a position to rally around. The whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon.''

Several gay leaders insisted, however, that the marriage measures were mostly in states Bush was expected to carry anyway. Even Ohio's measure, they insist, did not hurt Kerry.

They also defended their legal drive for marriage rights, which won a historic victory with the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts last November that ushered in the nation's first same-sex marriages last spring and triggered a national storm over gay and lesbian unions in the middle of a presidential campaign.

"It's hard for me to say Goodridge tipped everything when these folks were making anti-gay law a centerpiece of their strategy since 1996," said Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who won the case.

Bonauto said that by the time Goodridge was decided, 37 states already had "defense of marriage" statutes on the books, and a constitutional ban had already been introduced in Congress. ...

Foreman, however, pointed to Kerry's vote gains in Ohio, Michigan and Oregon, all of which had the same-sex ballot measures, over Democrat Al Gore's tallies in the 2000 race as proof the measures did not contribute to Kerry's defeat. ...

Nathan Persily, a University of Pennsylvania professor of law and politics, agreed that same-sex marriage became a proxy for the larger moral issues that so moved voters.

"John Kerry realized very late in the game that his persona as a secular Northeasterner was something that many Americans found foreign to them," he said, noting Kerry's declarations of his Catholic faith and speeches from Florida pulpits two Sundays before the election. ...

Cheryl Jacques, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, borrowed, perhaps not coincidentally, the moral values rhetoric of an earlier civil rights movement to defend the drive for marriage equality while conceding its difficulty.

"As Martin Luther King wrote in his 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail,' '' Jacques said, "there is no convenient time to ask those who oppose equality to think more kindly about it."

more

posted by Eve at 1:44 PM | link 0 comments

GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS LOOK TO THE COURTS: From the Seattle Times

...With the losses behind them, gay-rights activists now look to state courts, where they've enjoyed more success. Lawsuits over gay marriage are moving through courts in a handful of states, including New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.

The Washington Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments early next year in a consolidated suit in which two Superior Court judges separately ruled in favor of gay marriage.

And in Georgia, gay-marriage proponents have already filed a legal challenge to that state's newly approved constitutional gay-marriage ban, which voters backed by a margin of 77 to 23 percent Tuesday.

more

posted by Eve at 1:41 PM | link 0 comments

STATE BANS ON GAY MARRIAGE GALVANIZE SIDES: From the Los Angeles Times

The successful efforts to amend 11 state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage has energized both sides of the highly contentious issue.

Defenders of traditional marriage say voters' resounding support for state measures that limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman proves that a federal marriage amendment is inevitable.

Advocates of gay and lesbian marriage sounded equally determined Wednesday as they vowed to move ahead with efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut--and very likely within the next year, California.

With five new Republican senators elected Tuesday, opponents of same-sex marriage maintain, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution could be introduced and conceivably passed as soon as the next congressional session.

more

posted by Eve at 1:38 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTION SWEEP FOR MARRIAGE: Eve replies to Michael Triplett

Wow, I really don't agree about the way the issues were framed. Admittedly, I live in DC, so I saw virtually no campaign TV ads. But I've been doing Nexis searches for "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" daily for months now, so I've read about six quadrillion op-eds from supporters and opponents of the marriage amendments, from the New York Times to the Anytown Clarion-Pantagraph. And the overwhelming majority of the pro-amendment pieces focused on marriage, on what children need and which cultural messages promote strong families.

It's hardly dispositive evidence, but I'd also note that Oregon, which has rejected anti-gay-rights amendments twice in the past, passed the marriage amendment by 57%, thus a) the state has changed significantly in recent years, b) the electorate was strikingly different this year, c) voters really did differentiate between marriage and other gay-rights concerns, or d) some combination of the above. (I'd expect b and c--but mostly c.)

Jeff Sharlet makes the case for Michael's position, though.

posted by Eve at 7:34 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTION SWEEP FOR MARRIAGE?: Michael Triplett replies to Maggie Gallagher

I know this is the conventional conservative wisdom, but I don't think there is any evidence that "values voters" care about marriage. They may care about keeping gays out of marriage, but that's not the same as being "for marriage."

The reality of the Rove strategy was to run on anti-gay sentiment and THAT, undoubtedly, was successful. The anti-gay marriage initiative campaigns were not waged on a "we need to save fragile marriage" platform. They were focused on stirring up anti-gay sentiment and attempting to exploit anti-gay feelings among white evangelicals, hardline Catholics and minority voters to both vote for the amendments and for Pres. Bush. There was very little discussion of marriage and the problems of the American family and what happens to children raised in marriage. In fact, I would argue it is both disengenuous and in bad faith to say those were the bases of the campaigns. Instead, the campaigns were designed to fan the flames of anti-gay sentiment, targeting the most anti-gay communities possible--African Americans, Latino, and white evangelicals--in key areas--the Florida Panhandle, Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado.

Despite predictions, this tactic did little to move African Americans towards Bush. Those numbers increased by 1 to 2 percent. About 50% of white Catholics voted for Kerry,despite this tactic. It did, however, bring out the 4 million evangelicals that stayed home in 2000 so it clearly was a successful tactic.

We don't really know what "values voters" stand for or even mean. Values clearly don't mean tolerance or acceptance. It clearly does not mean being opposed to war, concerned about poverty, or opposition to capital punishment. The weeks and months ahead will likely help us figure out what those voters meant or intended. What is certain is that it wasn't about a concern for the marriage movement or marriage issues.

posted by Eve at 7:11 PM | link 0 comments

NAT'L GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE PRESS RELEASE

November 3, 2004 (11:00am)--New York City. Returns indicate state constitutional amendments seeking to ban same-sex marriage will pass in all eleven states where the question was on the ballot. (In eight of the 11 contests, the measures also seek to ban other, more limited forms of partner recognition, including civil unions and domestic partnerships.) The margins of defeat ranged from 86% to 14% in Mississippi to 57% to 43% in Oregon.

"The results underscore why we have a Bill of Rights--because it is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote. In fact, even today, 213 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is doubtful Americans could win our freedoms of speech, press and religion at the ballot box," said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (the "Task Force"). "In the end, we know the Bill of Rights will guarantee every American the freedom to marry. For now, we'll dig in and fight harder--we've been fighting the forces of intolerance for decades and have made enormous progress against enormous odds.

"Last night, marriage equality took a right hook to the chin and tens of thousands of families will be hurt, but it's certainly not a knockout--in fact, our community is emerging stronger than ever before in many states," Foreman continued. "This is only one round and when the fight is over, complete equality for gay people will be the only side left standing."

Oregon--the only state that had anything close to the amount of money needed to run a competitive race--came closest to defeating its amendment. When the Oregon campaign started, polls said the amendment would carry by 27 points, meaning that the effort to defeat the amendment moved the electorate by 17 points in less than three months. It was the only campaign to show a significant movement in the electorate during the course of the campaign.

The next closest contest was Michigan, where the amendment was adopted 59% to 41%. The Oregon amendment garnered only 41% of the vote in the Multnomah County, the state's most populous, but the results were not enough to offset pro-amendment margins in rural counties. In Oregon, the No on Amendment 36 campaign raised and spent $2.8 million, three times more than any other state. The Task Force contributed over $900,000 to the effort and was the campaign's largest donor. (A more detailed discussion of the Oregon campaign is below.)

"The Oregon results clearly show that we can move hearts and votes when we have the resources to reach voters and speak to them directly about marriage and why it matters to gay people," said Foreman.

"Even though amendments passed, our community is coming out stronger in many states--these campaigns educated millions of voters about the gay families, identified tens of thousands of pro-gay voters, brought in thousands of new donors, built unprecedented alliances with labor and faith communities, and energized hundreds and hundreds of new volunteers," said Foreman. "All of this is the long-term payoff because in the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on marriage equality and it will base its decision on the U.S. Constitution, not anything in any of the state constitutions."

more

posted by Eve at 6:35 PM | link 0 comments

A FAILURE OF WILL: Charles Karel Bouley II

Yesterday--November 2, 2004--11 states, almost one fifth of the electorate, voted on state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. All received overwhelming approval. ...

And while that prevalent attitude is bad enough, what's worse is that eight of the 11 states passed amendments also intended to ban civil unions, thereby throwing up yet another roadblock to any kind of equality under the law. The battle for marriage may have lost us the war we should have been fighting for all along: equality under the law under any name. Sometimes separate and equal is fine, especially in matters of rights granted by law.

But in our gay leaders' infinite wisdom someone decided it was all or nothing, make marriage equality the issue without compromise. Civil unions? Not enough. Hogwash. We won't be second-class citizens. Well, how many of you feel first class today?

Almost four years ago now I lost my husband--yes, I considered him that without any paperwork--to what I believe to be medical malpractice. Today--November 3, 2004--my case sits on appeal in the Los Angeles Superior Court, awaiting judges to determine whether I have any legal standing at all. They're not deciding the medical merits of the case; it's taken almost four years just for someone to say whether I can sue after living with Andrew as a couple for 11 1/2 years, having filed a domestic partnership agreement, and having been as married as any two people could be.

Now, if California already had AB 205--the new domestic-partnership law that takes effect in January 2005 and gives same-sex partners more legal standing and more responsibilities--when Andrew died, this wouldn't be an issue. But the lawyers on the side of the hospital argue that the rights AB 205 grants to domestic partners in the state didn't start until after his death, although that issue is debatable, since there is an apparent retroactive clause. Why do I even need to know this? Why should this even be on my mind? Why couldn't I sue like any other spouse? Because so many wanted marriage instead of domestic partnership or civil unions that now we're ending up with neither. ...

...If we all wanted same-sex marriage or federally recognized civil unions, we’d have them. Because trust me, as a collective, we've got nothing but time and more resources at our disposal than our nongay counterparts, and if we connected ourselves to something more than online meeting places, we’d have quite an infrastructure.

But we simply don't want it. ...

The gay community seems to have George W. Bush syndrome: We cannot admit we were wrong, even in the face of more defeats than wins. When George W. Bush called for a Federal Marriage Amendment, we should have had the political clout to say, Fine, we won't push gay and lesbian marriage, but we'll only not make an issue out of it if you give us a national domestic-partner registry with all the legal rights of marriage. There was a compromise, but we didn't have the clout to push for it because we didn't want to push for it.

...Many of you may not even know what your workplace's or state's stance on domestic partnership is, what benefits may or may not be granted to you or your partner. Many more couples haven't even filled out the agreements. Not surprising, since 50% of you don’t have wills and 100% of you are going to die. ...

First, agree on an agenda. And, quite frankly, let's make it mine: National Domestic Partnership Recognition. Leave the word marriage alone, for God's sake. I mean that, for God's sake. The word is too tied to God, to religion, to heterosexual tradition. Leave the word alone. Create a new class of unions under the law, unions that carry the same benefits but have a different name.

more

posted by Eve at 6:27 PM | link 0 comments

MORE ON MASS. ELECTIONS: From the Boston Globe

In his bid to unseat state Senator Marian Walsh of West Roxbury, independent challenger Robert W. Joyce figured his opposition to gay marriage would play well in her heavily Catholic district. In the waning hours of the campaign, he left voice mail messages stressing his stance.

It didn't work; Walsh won yesterday with nearly 65 percent of the vote. Savoring her victory last night, Walsh said she believes voters were put off by Joyce's emphasis on same-sex marriage. ...

Walsh's commanding victory was just one of several election results yesterday that gay-marriage supporters were celebrating. They said they had picked up two votes supporting gay marriage in the Legislature. ...

But gay-marriage opponents also claimed victory last night.

"The incumbents that were on our side on the marriage issue were victorious, even though they were significantly challenged," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "There was a tremendous onslaught against them from the opponents to traditional marriage, and they held their ground."

Representative Philip Travis, Democrat of Rehoboth, who has opposed both gay marriage and civil unions, defeated Steven S. Howitt, a Republican challenger who supported gay marriage, to keep his seat. Republican state Representative Shirley Gomes of South Harwich, who supports civil unions but not gay marriage, defeated Sarah Peake, who was backed by gay-rights groups.

And in a rematch of their special-election battle last March, Wrentham Republican Scott P. Brown, a gay-marriage opponent, narrowly defeated Democrat Angus McQuilken of Millis, a supporter.

more

posted by Eve at 6:24 PM | link 0 comments

IOWA JUDGE RETAINS SEAT: From the Des Moines Register

A northwest Iowa judge who approved a controversial divorce of two Sioux City lesbians will keep his job despite efforts by conservatives to unseat him in Tuesday's election.

District Judge Jeffrey Neary, 46, received 58 percent yes votes among the 56,000-plus ballots cast for a six-year term in District 3B, a mostly rural Republican area that includes Sioux City. A simple majority was needed for retention. ...

Critics accused Neary of judicial activism and opening the way for gay marriages, which are banned in the state. Neary countered that he didn't favor same-sex marriages when he issued the divorce in November. In a recent interview, he said he had only "terminated a civil union--no more, no less."

more

posted by Eve at 6:19 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTION SWEEP FOR MARRIAGE: Maggie Gallagher

Call last night the victory of the values voter.

In Ohio, ABC News reports last night that the top issue for Bush voters was not terrorism, or the economy or Iraq: it was "moral values." Thirty-eight percent of Bush voters listed the issue as their top concern.

State constitutional marriage amendments passed in all thirteen states: AR (75%), GA (77%), KY(75%), LA (78%), MI (59%), MS (86%), MO (72%), MT (66%), ND (73%), OH (62%), OK (76%), OR (57%), UT (66%). The constitutional amendment in Oregon now ends the court case that had ruled against the marriage laws.

The Oregon victory is particularly significant. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay marriage advocates concentrated their forces on this one small state (inexpensive media market, more secular than most states). They lost by a healthy margin.

Without the values voters, Pres. Bush would not be President.

posted by Eve at 4:22 PM | link 0 comments

MESSAGE FROM A SOUTH DAKOTA OBSERVER: Via Maggie Gallagher

John Thune won in the closing weeks of the campaign because of the potency of two overlapping themes: 1) Daschle talks conservative in South Dakota but acts the opposite in Washington.
2) Daschle has lost touch with basic South Dakota values.

The issues that drove these two themes in the closing days were the Federal Marriage Amendment, Daschle's patently false pro-life and pro-marriage claims, Daschle's record of obstructionism--especially his blocking of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees, and the brouhaha over Daschle's official residency.

As National Review Online has noted, the 527 "You're Fired" ran a massive television and radio campaign in the closing weeks of the campaign using Daschle's opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment to question whether Daschle's "heart is still in the heartland."

posted by Eve at 4:19 PM | link 0 comments

CRUNCH CRUNCH CRUNCH: Stats from the Marriage Law Project

Arkansas
marriage amendment: 75%
Bush: 47%
Kerry: 52%

Georgia
M: 77
B: 63
K: 36

Kentucky
m: 75
b: 60
k: 39

Michigan
m: 59
b: 48
k: 51

Mississippi
m: 86
b: 59
k: 40

Montana
m: 66
b: 59
k: 39

North Dakota
m: 73
b: 59
k: 39

Ohio
m: 62
b: 51
k: 49

Oklahoma
m: 76
b: 66
k: 34

Oregon
m: 58
b: 47
k: 52

Utah
m: 66
b: 71
k: 27

Louisiana (9.18) [EDITED: These states voted on the marriage amendments prior to 11/2--on Sept 18 and Aug 3. --Eve]
m: 78
b: 57
k: 42

Missouri (8.3)
m: 71
b: 53
k: 46

Source: MSNBC 11.3.04 a.m.

...In all but one state, the marriage amendment received a higher percentage than the candidate who carried the state. The marriage amendments received strong bi-partisan support.

posted by Eve at 4:12 PM | link 0 comments

HERE COMES THE JUDGE: From the Boston Globe

..."We knew that putting this up for a popular vote we would lose," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which opposed the referendums. "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote, and that is why we have a Bill of Rights, and ultimately the Bill of Rights will win for gay Americans the freedom to marry just as the Massachusetts court did for gay people in that state. We have all known forever this would all be resolved by the US Supreme Court." Gay marriages are legal in Massachusetts as a result of a court decision.

Opponents of same-sex marriage were pleased with the results but some agreed with Foreman that the measures will quickly be challenged in the courts. ...

The state referendums "will be struck down in federal court, every one of them," predicted Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which favors passage of an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage. ...

While both Kerry and Bush oppose same-sex marriage, Bush has urged passage of an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage while Kerry has said the measure is unnecessary and the question should be left to the states.

more

posted by Eve at 4:02 PM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS": Hugo Schwyzer

[Crunching and commenting on CNN's exit-pollage. --Eve]

...5. Protestants who attended church weekly went for Bush, 70-29. Hey, I'm just happy to be part of that 29%! Hurrah for us; we're a "faithful remnant!"

6. The marriage gap is now bigger than the Gender Gap: married folks of all sexes went 56-43 for Bush; unmarried folks went for Kerry by an even bigger margin, a whopping 59-40.

7. Remarkably, the exit poll showed that 22% of those folks who favored gay marriage still voted for Bush; 30% who opposed all forms of legal recognition for GLBTQ people voted for Kerry. What they were thinking, I don't know.

8. 22% of the electorate selected moral values as the most important issue in this campaign, more than chose the economy (20%), terrorism (19%), or Iraq (15%). Of that 22% who viewed moral issues as of chief importance, they went 79-18 for President Bush. Again, I'm damned proud to be with that 18% who see poverty, the environment, and global social justice as moral issues!

more

posted by Eve at 3:56 PM | link 0 comments

"MOUNT SINAI HAS NOT BEEN ERASED FROM THE POLITICAL MAP": Terry Mattingly

...Please note the emphasis that I placed in that old lead on the role of the religious left. Some people have assumed that the "pew gap" phenomenon means that there are conservatives who go to church and liberals who do not. That is too simplistic. There are moral and cultural liberals who are devout, as well. But their numbers are much smaller. The "pew gap" division is between traditional pews and a coalition of liberal believers and people who are openly and aggressively secular. This is the coalition that some have called the "anti-evangelical voters." This coalition is growing and its role in the modern Democratic Party is pivotal.

Many have noted that Republicans face the crucial question of how to please the Religious Right without driving away the mushy middle of the American "values" spectrum. After last night, many more will be asking: How does the Democratic Party retain the lifestyle left, the "anti-evangelical voters" without killing itself in red-county America? Or does everyone just hang on to the cards they have right now and do this whole routine over in 2008? Anyone for Jeb vs. Hillary? Or what does the Religious Right do if its Rudy Guliani vs. John Edwards?

more

posted by Eve at 3:52 PM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS" AND THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: David Morrison

[David's comment here applies, I think/hope, to marriage issues as well. --Eve]

"I think these election results can only serve to strengthen the hand of the pro-life Democrats since they can now reasonably make the case that if the Kerry campaign had reached out to socially conservative Democrats, Kerry might have won." (more)

posted by Eve at 3:47 PM | link 0 comments

THE CATHOLIC VOTE: Leonard Leo (Catholic advisor to Bush-Cheney campaign)

1. Catholics voted for President Bush over Senator Kerry by 51 to 48. That is a 4 percent gain over 2000.
2. Among regular Mass-attending Catholics, President Bush by 55-44 percent. This number was not reported in 2000, but the result is clearly impressive and debunks any suggestion that the Catholic vote is a myth.
3. The gain in Catholic support (4 points) surpassed the gain in the Protestant vote (2 points).

link

posted by Eve at 3:42 PM | link 0 comments

SSM SUPPORTERS RE-ELECTED IN MASSACHUSETTS: MassEquality press release

Despite orchestrated Republican opposition led by Gov. Mitt Romney, and the push of right-wing groups, all incumbent legislators throughout Massachusetts who voted for equal treatment for same-sex couples -- in urban, suburban and rural districts -- won re-election. These races were dominated more by local issues than by legislators' votes against a constitutional amendment that would deny equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. This in the face of the attempt by some opponents to defeat these incumbents solely on their position on this single issue.

Additionally, there were eight open seats where a pro-equality candidate faced a candidate who supports the discriminatory constitutional amendment. Of these eight open seat elections, six were won by pro-equality candidates. Senators-elect Ed Augustus (2nd Worcester) and Karen Spilka (2nd Middlesex and Norfolk) both won tough races against well-funded opponents. Representatives-elect Denis Guyer (2nd Berkshire), John Keenan (7th Essex), Tom Sannicandro (7th Middlesex), and Cleon Turner (1st Barnstable) also won. We applaud the tremendous efforts of pro-equality candidates Jack McFeeley (9th Norfolk) and Monica Palacios-Boyce (1st Hampden) whose bids for the State House in the end fell short.

While no pro-equality incumbent was defeated in last night's general election, two incumbents who supported the amendment lost their seats to pro-equality challengers in the Democratic Party primary elections. Openly-gay candidate Carl Sciortino defeated Rep. Vincent Ciampa (34th Middlesex District) and Steve Canessa defeated Rep. Mark Howland (12th Bristol District). Both were elected yesterday, with Sciortino beating back by a two-to-one margin a write-in challenge from Ciampa that included extreme anti-gay mailers and statements.

more

posted by Eve at 3:35 PM | link 0 comments

ELECTION REACTIONS: Andrew Sullivan x2

"The dignity of our lives and our relationships as gay people is not dependent on heterosexual approval or tolerance." (more)

"As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. That goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. Federalism is now more important than ever." (more)

posted by Eve at 3:27 PM | link 0 comments

ALL ELEVEN MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS PASS: From the Seattle Times

Clique usted aqui.

posted by Eve at 4:42 AM | link 0 comments

KERRY, GAY MARRIAGE, PHONE CALLS: Various

The Associated Press reports: "In Michigan, in a recording of a call played for the AP, a young woman says: 'When you vote this Tuesday remember to legalize gay marriage by supporting John Kerry. We need John Kerry in order to make gay marriage legal for our city. Gay marriage is a right we all want. It's a basic Democrat principle. It's time to move forward and be progressive. Without John Kerry, George Bush will stop gay marriage. That's why we need Kerry. So Tuesday, stand up for gay marriage by supporting John Kerry.'" (here)

Nick Mikulicic defends the ads, based on Kerry's 1996 Advocate interview.

Jim Lindgren vs. the ads: "This sort of thing is reprehensible. While Kerry might want to make gay marriage legal if he thought he could (I would favor such a move myself), Kerry is crystal clear that he opposes it." (He calls the Advocate quotes "impassioned but ambiguous.")

posted by Eve at 1:56 PM | link 0 comments

NO ON STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS: Walter Olson

Readers of this space may recall that I've repeatedly voiced opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment (Jul. 12, Feb. 25, Feb. 20). The mini-FMAs on eleven state ballots today deserve defeat too.

To begin with, they're not just aimed at preventing judicial activism. Were that the case, they would consist of language along the lines of, "Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to require...", thus tying the hands of judges who might be inclined to pursue creative misreadings on behalf of a right to same-sex marriage. Very strangely, amendment proponents often manage to pose as tribunes of the right to decide the definition of marriage democratically -- although the amendments would in fact prevent democratically elected legislatures from getting their way should sentiments shift in the future from those prevailing today. When (as is usual) these amendments instruct courts to give no effect whatever to various relationships formed lawfully in other states (such as Vermont civil unions), they ensure a train of harsh and unreasonable consequences. In the past, when the validity of marriages has differed from one jurisdiction to the next, courts have often steered a middle course that protected the reasonable expectations of the parties on matters of, say, inheritance or property division, while not permitting them to "import" the unauthorized legal status for general purposes. If courts are required entirely to ignore the set of property rules that a Vermont couple had thought governed their relationship, they will encourage tactical litigation by, e.g., estranged relatives seeking to grab assets after the death of one of the partners in the union.

Finally, some of the amendments go far beyond banning same-sex marriage as such to institute sweeping and vague prohibitions which will likely lead both to injurious results and to much litigation. Ohio's, for example, would prohibit government recognition of any status for unmarried individuals "that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Republican Gov. Taft cited the vagueness of that provision in opposing the amendment; also opposed are the Attorney General of Ohio and both Senators, all of them Republicans, as well as such large local businesses as Nationwide Insurance and The Limited. (Jim Siegel, "Taft: 'No' on same-sex issue", Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 14).

link

posted by Eve at 1:01 PM | link 0 comments

THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE: Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs

On Election Day, citizens in eleven states will vote on measures to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. These referenda will take place in almost every region of the country.

Most Americans know why these referenda are being held. Since 1993, judges in four states--Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts--have tried to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, and new cases are pending in other states. To most Americans, the judicial abolition of traditional marriage laws is both undemocratic and unprincipled. This perception has fueled the movement for referenda by which the people of the states seek to preserve marriage and their right to self-government against the depredations of liberal judges.

To judge from the marriage referenda already held in other states, the proposals to protect marriage will pass by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Most Bush voters will support these proposals. Many who are at least considering a vote for John Kerry will join them.

But pro-marriage Kerry voters are in a curious position: If their support for Kerry enables him to win the presidency, his victory will almost surely nullify their vote to protect marriage. If Kerry is elected, the marriage referenda will have been a waste of time, because a Kerry presidency will give us same-sex "marriage" in all 50 states.

Senator Kerry would deny this. Although in 1996 he likened opposition to same-sex marriage to different kinds of bigotry, in his campaign he has been careful to say that he opposes same-sex marriage. Because of the public's overwhelming opposition, Kerry's position is politically prudent--and his liberal supporters understand that. They are confident--rightly so--that he will do nothing to stop the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage, whether by state supreme courts or the Supreme Court of the United States.

If elected, Kerry will almost certainly have the opportunity to make multiple Supreme Court nominations, and Kerry nominees will do what is needed to compel the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. Indeed, Kerry's liberal base is quietly counting on it. And they are right to count on it. Throughout the campaign, Kerry has not identified a single action he would take or endorse to prevent the redefinition of marriage by state or federal courts.

more

posted by Eve at 5:41 PM | link 0 comments

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE FIRES UP GAYS: From the Washington Post

...The four volunteers are members or employees of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest gay, bisexual and transgender political organization. They were part of the largest get-out-the-vote operation Nevada has ever seen. While the Republicans across town had their own effort underway, the ACT coalition -- independent of, but working for the Democratic ticket -- had amassed a large collection of groups -- from labor unions, veteran and student organizations, and HRC, which has 600,000 members and counting.

HRC sent 30 volunteers to Las Vegas over the weekend and 700 people to eight targeted swing states -- Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It is spending $6.75 million this election, a record for the group. Its primary mission is to help defeat President Bush, who announced his support in February for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, and also to help elect "fair-minded" candidates who are against the proposed marriage amendment.

Among the small group of HRC volunteers here, none had ever done shoe-leather campaign work before. "I'm a little nervous," Perlman, an HRC board member more used to organizing fundraisers than ringing doorbells, said as he looked around the staging area. ...

"I've been at HRC for five years, and I've never seen this kind of passion and energy," said Labonte, a lobbyist.

Along with its voter mobilization effort, which included identifying and contacting not only gay voters but also their allies -- friends and family members -- HRC tracked its political might, matching its members with people who have contributed to campaigns. It found that as of June, HRC members had donated $22 million this year. Membership is rising, up by 25 percent since 2000.

more

posted by Eve at 5:09 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE BATTLE ISSUE NOT AN AUTOMATIC BUSH VOTE: From the Associated Press

Leaders of morally conservative but traditionally Democratic black churches are bucking the conventional wisdom that a vote against gay marriage will automatically be reflected at the top of the ticket.

Veteran civil rights leader the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, pastor of Greater New Light Missionary Baptist Church in Cincinnati, sees no conflict in voting against gay marriage as a state issue and for Democrat John Kerry as president.

Nationally, Shuttlesworth is less worried about marriage than about people without health insurance or unable to pay their utility bills. ...

In Ohio, both Roman Catholic and black Protestant ministers have had news conferences urging support of the constitutional amendment, which will be Issue 1 on the statewide ballot.

Shuttlesworth, who marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. for the right to vote, has appeared in campaign literature and told his congregation to support the gay marriage ban and oppose repealing the Cincinnati ballot measure against gay rights.

Clergy cannot advocate directly for or against a partisan candidate from the pulpit, but there's no such restrictions on an issues campaign, said David Bositis, researcher for the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which focuses on issues concerning blacks.

The Joint Center's national poll released this month showed that Bush had doubled his support among blacks, to 18 percent from 9 percent in 2000. That probably has more to do with Bush's funding for faith-based initiative than gay marriage, Bositis said. And Kerry still has a wide lead, with 69 percent of blacks saying they'll vote for him.

more

posted by Eve at 5:03 PM | link 0 comments